What do you think?
Rate this book
Adventures of an Accidental Sociologist: How to Explain the World Without Becoming a Bore
Peter L. Berger is arguably the best-known American sociologist living today. Since the 1960s he has been publishing books on many facets of the American social scene, and several are now considered classics. So it may be hard to believe Professor Berger's description of himself as an "accidental sociologist." But that in fact accurately describes how he stumbled into sociology. In this witty, intellectually stimulating memoir, Berger explains not only how he became a social scientist, but the many adventures that this calling has led to. Rather than writing an autobiography, he focuses on the main intellectual issues that motivated his work and the various people and situations he encountered in the course of his career. Full of memorable vignettes and colorful characters depicted in a lively narrative often laced with humor, Berger's memoir conveys the excitement that a study of social life can bring. The first part of the book describes Berger's initiation into sociology through the New School for Social Research, "a European enclave in the midst of Greenwich Village bohemia." Berger was first a student at the New School and later a young professor amidst a clique of like-minded individuals. There he published The Social Construction of Reality (with colleague Thomas Luckmann), one of his most successful books, followed by The Sacred Canopy on the sociology of religion, also still widely cited.The book covers Berger's experience as a "globe-trekking sociologist" including trips to Mexico, where he studied approaches to Third World poverty; to East Asia, where he discovered the potential of capitalism to improve social conditions; and to South Africa, where he chaired an international study group on the future of post-Apartheid society.Berger then tells about his role as the director of a research center at Boston University. For over two decades he and his colleagues have been tackling such important issues as globalization, the secularization of Europe, and the ongoing dialectic between relativism and fundamentalism in contemporary culture.What comes across throughout is Berger's boundless curiosity with the many ways in which people interact in society. This book offers longtime Berger readers as well as newcomers to sociology proof that the sociologist's attempt to explain the world is anything but boring.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
11 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
About the author
Peter L. Berger
190 books229 followersPeter L. Berger was an internationally renowned sociologist, and the founder of Boston University's Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs. He was born in Vienna and came to the U.S. in his late teens. He had a master's degree and a doctorate from the New School for Social Research in New York. After two years in the United States Army, he taught at the University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina before going to the Hartford Seminary Foundation as an Assistant Professor in Social Ethics.
In 1992, Peter Berger was awarded the Manes Sperber Prize, presented by the Austrian government for significant contributions to culture. He was the author of many books, among them The Social Construction of Reality, The Homeless Mind, and Questions of Faith.
In 1992, Peter Berger was awarded the Manes Sperber Prize, presented by the Austrian government for significant contributions to culture. He was the author of many books, among them The Social Construction of Reality, The Homeless Mind, and Questions of Faith.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 25, 2019
It is an extremely likeable narrative but perhaps my expectations were too much. Unfortunately, I finished it with mixed feelings. It is like one of those memorable movies which you only remember because of their sound-tracks or excellent cinematography or editing.
January 4, 2013
On the way to becoming a Lutheran minister, Peter L. Berger stumbled into a long and productive career as a sociologist. Now retired, Berger never made it through seminary or into a pulpit. Nevertheless, his interest in religion has been a major factor in his sociology, and an even more important influence on his life.[258] The story of his “trajectory” as a sociologist is told in Adventures of an Accidental Sociologist.
Berger’s work has been particularly interesting to me as a retired Christian engineer now engaged in studies in the Department of Science & Technology in Society (STS) at Virginia Tech. His books (at least the ones I have read so far) synthesize and update the concepts of sociology’s founding fathers—Marx, Durkheim, and Weber—in a concise and readable style. Accidental Sociologist gives an overview of his writing, while adding contextual and critical commentary. This will be invaluable to me in selecting and applying Berger’s work in my PhD dissertation.
Beyond this, I found Berger’s story to be very helpful in understanding the place of sociology in academia, which I aspire to after graduation. His work has often been interdisciplinary, a core element of STS. The deep respect with which Berger approaches his colleagues and research subjects is a great model for whatever work I end up doing.
Further, Berger’s story reflects a profoundly human approach to work and life. He is at once a deep thinker and a humble seeker for God. For example, he is interested in “the comic as sociology,” noting how “the comic perspective, often in a sudden flash, illuminates a social reality.”[254] This light-hearted approach to sociology resonates with the theology expressed in the quote: “Laughter is God's hand on the shoulder of a troubled world.”
Finally, I am impressed by Berger’s ability to stand on his beliefs—adjusting them as necessary—in the face of (often harsh) criticism from others and his own doubts. This practice gives him great insights into the sociology of having “convictions without fanaticism.”[248–253] Berger’s tentative conclusions offer a good foundation for further analysis from theological, political, and other perspectives.
Berger’s work has been particularly interesting to me as a retired Christian engineer now engaged in studies in the Department of Science & Technology in Society (STS) at Virginia Tech. His books (at least the ones I have read so far) synthesize and update the concepts of sociology’s founding fathers—Marx, Durkheim, and Weber—in a concise and readable style. Accidental Sociologist gives an overview of his writing, while adding contextual and critical commentary. This will be invaluable to me in selecting and applying Berger’s work in my PhD dissertation.
Beyond this, I found Berger’s story to be very helpful in understanding the place of sociology in academia, which I aspire to after graduation. His work has often been interdisciplinary, a core element of STS. The deep respect with which Berger approaches his colleagues and research subjects is a great model for whatever work I end up doing.
Further, Berger’s story reflects a profoundly human approach to work and life. He is at once a deep thinker and a humble seeker for God. For example, he is interested in “the comic as sociology,” noting how “the comic perspective, often in a sudden flash, illuminates a social reality.”[254] This light-hearted approach to sociology resonates with the theology expressed in the quote: “Laughter is God's hand on the shoulder of a troubled world.”
Finally, I am impressed by Berger’s ability to stand on his beliefs—adjusting them as necessary—in the face of (often harsh) criticism from others and his own doubts. This practice gives him great insights into the sociology of having “convictions without fanaticism.”[248–253] Berger’s tentative conclusions offer a good foundation for further analysis from theological, political, and other perspectives.
July 30, 2022
The book summarizes Berger’s intellectual career as a “social scientist.” The term is in quotes because I didn’t see the scientist part. Rather, I saw a smart man who had a large point of view about how the world worked but unaware about how his own value set molded his perspective. If he was, I didn’t see the corrective mechanisms to ensure objectivity. His methodological commentary was few and far between. He did characterize his various visits to foreign countries as “sociological tourism.”
The scientist self-designation gives him authority and cachet. Berger is really a social theorist who frames the world in certain ways and uses data and argument to backfill. In other words, he leads with values, his values, and uses reason to justify. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but an acknowledgment of such as opposed to cloaking it with “science” lends a needed modesty to what Berger says.
Rather than go this route, Berger doubles down and argues, as a “scientist,” for a “dual citizenship” that allows one to engage the world politically while retaining some distance so that what is seen, and how it is presented, is done in a “value free” way. Thus, Berger’s intellectual career enabled him to associate extensively with think tanks and advocacy organizations with strong points of view. (1) Again, this is fine for a public intellectual, but it needs to be done without the pretension that this is about scientific engagement.
At the end of his book, Berger takes another crack at walking the line he has drawn for himself. Here it is about his philosophical approach toward the world, where the line he sets lies between relativism (the absence of any universal moral standard) and fundamentalism (the assertion of truth with little tolerance for deviation). He says it’s all about perception of the other as a human being. His moral compass is that “the dignity of man is inviolate.” (2) And, there it is, Berger’s moral system written up in a couple of paragraphs, an assertion cloaked as a universal truth, thus mirroring his approach to sociology as “science.” It is, for a person of his stature, and putting this kindly, a most unsatisfying piece of philosophy. Where does that get us morally? Isn’t Christian fundamentalism about the dignity of man? What about Islamic fundamentalism? And, does this mean that Stalin, Hitler, et al are, or should be, amenable to Berger’s reason?
In arguing for his philosophical approach, Berger dismisses “the survival values,” variously referenced by evolutionary biologists, commenting that these have failed “empirically.” But this just shows the problem of being stuck within one’s own potato sack. The evolutionary perspective can explain a lot. Why the phenomena of religion if not for survival, and its extension, “betterment” (Berger’s term), and the fear of it not being so? Are these not the forces that impel humans to create trans-material phenomena and the spiritualization of existence to get around the obvious fact of bodily decomposition upon death? Berger does not get into these explanatory factors.
Berger also writes about the social construction of reality. Yes, we swim in social construction, but the question really is, why are we doing that? That’s the way we adapt to and survive in the world. We draw from it and make adjustments based on our needs or fears. And, how do we account for the obviously powerful phenomena of social construction, with emphasis on “social?” Isn’t it because we are a group and tribal people who are more inclined to conform to our own kind and their way of thinking? With the group we survive; without it, we die.
Berger sees a linear progression toward “development” and “modernity,” yet from a biological survival point of view, we are invariant beings with certain fundamental propensities that, cyclically, play out over and over. Predominately, this is the assertion of self- and group-interest and a might-is-right approach toward others and other groups. War, violence, and inhumanity are hhistorical constants because they are human nature constants.
How does political philosophy deal with such Hobbesian assertions? Well, you can go right straight to the golden rule that Berger somewhat dismisses because of its moral command feature. (3) The only check on a universal impetus for promoting one’s own interest (i.e., one’s freedom to do so), is for the negative effect it has on the freedom of others. This redounds on our own self-interest and that’s why the golden rule exists in various forms, across all cultures, and that’s why opposing those who violate this command is such a social and political necessity.
The best line in Berger’s book was, “In most of the world, if one speaks about culture, on speaks about religion” and Berger is good at pointing out the early origins of the culture wars (victimology, political correctness, etc.). But he is buried in his own academic mindset. There’s a subtle undercurrent to this book. Berger seems preoccupied with the coined terms he and his colleagues come up with that get some circulation within academic circles and the popular press. And then, along the same line, there’s his interest in being relevant via his association with various political operators and his think tank books that were probably of little consequence.
(1) For example, Berger argues that capitalism is the best economic system for development, and that children are “best” off if raised by their biological parents, and that a colleague’s findings were “compelling” (by implication, to the public at large).
(2) The phrase rings similar to Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man, which was about his fanatic devotion to God, and man’s reflection of God’s perfection.
(3) Berger writes: “Hillel, the great Jewish sage, was once asked whether the meaning of the Torah could be stated while standing on one foot. He said yes and then stated what is probably the first formulation of the Golden Rule: ‘Do not do unto others what you hate being done to you.’ He added, ‘The rest is commentary.’ I suggested that the question of what is meant by European values can also be answered while standing on one foot. It is one sentence of the constitution of the Federal Republic: ‘The dignity of man is inviolate.’”
The scientist self-designation gives him authority and cachet. Berger is really a social theorist who frames the world in certain ways and uses data and argument to backfill. In other words, he leads with values, his values, and uses reason to justify. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but an acknowledgment of such as opposed to cloaking it with “science” lends a needed modesty to what Berger says.
Rather than go this route, Berger doubles down and argues, as a “scientist,” for a “dual citizenship” that allows one to engage the world politically while retaining some distance so that what is seen, and how it is presented, is done in a “value free” way. Thus, Berger’s intellectual career enabled him to associate extensively with think tanks and advocacy organizations with strong points of view. (1) Again, this is fine for a public intellectual, but it needs to be done without the pretension that this is about scientific engagement.
At the end of his book, Berger takes another crack at walking the line he has drawn for himself. Here it is about his philosophical approach toward the world, where the line he sets lies between relativism (the absence of any universal moral standard) and fundamentalism (the assertion of truth with little tolerance for deviation). He says it’s all about perception of the other as a human being. His moral compass is that “the dignity of man is inviolate.” (2) And, there it is, Berger’s moral system written up in a couple of paragraphs, an assertion cloaked as a universal truth, thus mirroring his approach to sociology as “science.” It is, for a person of his stature, and putting this kindly, a most unsatisfying piece of philosophy. Where does that get us morally? Isn’t Christian fundamentalism about the dignity of man? What about Islamic fundamentalism? And, does this mean that Stalin, Hitler, et al are, or should be, amenable to Berger’s reason?
In arguing for his philosophical approach, Berger dismisses “the survival values,” variously referenced by evolutionary biologists, commenting that these have failed “empirically.” But this just shows the problem of being stuck within one’s own potato sack. The evolutionary perspective can explain a lot. Why the phenomena of religion if not for survival, and its extension, “betterment” (Berger’s term), and the fear of it not being so? Are these not the forces that impel humans to create trans-material phenomena and the spiritualization of existence to get around the obvious fact of bodily decomposition upon death? Berger does not get into these explanatory factors.
Berger also writes about the social construction of reality. Yes, we swim in social construction, but the question really is, why are we doing that? That’s the way we adapt to and survive in the world. We draw from it and make adjustments based on our needs or fears. And, how do we account for the obviously powerful phenomena of social construction, with emphasis on “social?” Isn’t it because we are a group and tribal people who are more inclined to conform to our own kind and their way of thinking? With the group we survive; without it, we die.
Berger sees a linear progression toward “development” and “modernity,” yet from a biological survival point of view, we are invariant beings with certain fundamental propensities that, cyclically, play out over and over. Predominately, this is the assertion of self- and group-interest and a might-is-right approach toward others and other groups. War, violence, and inhumanity are hhistorical constants because they are human nature constants.
How does political philosophy deal with such Hobbesian assertions? Well, you can go right straight to the golden rule that Berger somewhat dismisses because of its moral command feature. (3) The only check on a universal impetus for promoting one’s own interest (i.e., one’s freedom to do so), is for the negative effect it has on the freedom of others. This redounds on our own self-interest and that’s why the golden rule exists in various forms, across all cultures, and that’s why opposing those who violate this command is such a social and political necessity.
The best line in Berger’s book was, “In most of the world, if one speaks about culture, on speaks about religion” and Berger is good at pointing out the early origins of the culture wars (victimology, political correctness, etc.). But he is buried in his own academic mindset. There’s a subtle undercurrent to this book. Berger seems preoccupied with the coined terms he and his colleagues come up with that get some circulation within academic circles and the popular press. And then, along the same line, there’s his interest in being relevant via his association with various political operators and his think tank books that were probably of little consequence.
(1) For example, Berger argues that capitalism is the best economic system for development, and that children are “best” off if raised by their biological parents, and that a colleague’s findings were “compelling” (by implication, to the public at large).
(2) The phrase rings similar to Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man, which was about his fanatic devotion to God, and man’s reflection of God’s perfection.
(3) Berger writes: “Hillel, the great Jewish sage, was once asked whether the meaning of the Torah could be stated while standing on one foot. He said yes and then stated what is probably the first formulation of the Golden Rule: ‘Do not do unto others what you hate being done to you.’ He added, ‘The rest is commentary.’ I suggested that the question of what is meant by European values can also be answered while standing on one foot. It is one sentence of the constitution of the Federal Republic: ‘The dignity of man is inviolate.’”
November 27, 2019
Both an entertaining account of the great sociologist's life, as well as an autobiographical overview of sorts of the author's oeuvre, this serves as a wonderful introduction to Berger's thought. Recommended.
September 24, 2020
Interesting to see how his life and major works unfolded, but his sexist ideas make it something I won’t recommend.
May 12, 2024
Despite the title, this book can be quite the bore. Oh, there are some interesting anecdotes here and there, and the author shares some decent jokes at the end of the book, but most of the information here isn't particularly interesting or illuminating. This book might serve as an introduction to some of Berger's more valuable work, and I was intrigued by some or his remarks about "multiple modernities," and some of his criticisms of "secularization theory," but these nuggets of wisdom were sandwiched in-between yawning expanses of tedium and the occasional cliche remark about leftists who fail to use their inside voices being just as bad as Nazis. The author seems particularly fond of the golden mean fallacy, and often attempts to portray himself as more rational than those around him by positioning himself in the middle of debates, and then acting as if those that take a side are extremists.
December 21, 2011
It was a heady time.A time of great change in Sociology. The edifice of functionalism was falling apart and had been replaced with a mixture of Marxism, simple structuralism and a return to a very simple Weberian way of life, and along came Peter Berger and his "humanistic Sociology".As the years have gone by there is a nostalgia by sociologists that have made Peter a living legend.This book should not be read as a theoretical discursis, it is, in fact just an autobiography of how a 1950's sociologist reinvented Sociology through the influence of the European schools. If, like me, you lived through this it is fascinating reading of a flawed life, like all our lives are flawed....
September 25, 2011
Berger was my first inspiration both in sociology and the study of religion, so it's difficult to write an unbiased review. On the other hand his conservative politics have never appealed to me and what's really unfortunate is that the conservatism is reflected on his current views of society (and sociology). In many ways Berger has moved towards the very functionalism that he so critiqued in his early writings. This book is the story of that journey. It is absolutely fascinating reading--even if you disagree with his tobacco industry advocacy and other personal foibles.
March 5, 2012
Total bore.
November 4, 2012
By the author of _The Social Construction of Reality_... Prof. Berger's one of the strongest influences on my thinking.
April 17, 2016
Zaujímavá biografia - ku cti jej slúži, že svoju nekompletnosť odhaľuje a nehanbí sa za ňu. Inak je to materiál na mnoho polemík.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews